PokerNews reported on a ruling made in the $50K Player's Championships: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/06/controversial-poker-hand-highlights-day-2-of-50000-ppc-12946.htm

I would briefly summarize the essential facts as follows:

1. The game is PLO. Before the flop is dealt, Player A is all-in. Player B announces "all-in", but given that he can raise only the amount of pot, he could not actually go all-in given his chip stack, and is deemed to raise the pot. 2. Player C has player B covered. After a long, long delay, he eventually announces "call". All players turn over their cards, and the board is dealt out. A wins the main pot, B wins the side pot.3. It is then pointed out that C merely "called" and B was never actually "all-in". Chaos ensues. The floor is called for a ruling.

The first floorperson ruled that since action on the flop was not complete, the turn and river must be redealt. Understandably, A appealed this ruling.The second floorperson ruled that there was "accepted action" by all parties, and so in respect of the side pot, C must pay off the balance of B's deemed all-in wager.

Comments on this situation? Can we get to the same place using TDA rules or is it a "Rule 1" situation? I like the final ruling -- I can't see how B or C can argue that they should not be all-in after flipping over their cards and letting the board run out. The first floorperson's decision is terrible, IMO. I hate giving players two chances to win a pot, especially when there is more than enough time for a player to bring attention to any irregularity in the deal before the entire board is dealt.

This type of situation and variations of it happens more often than one might think. A player is close to being all-in, but is not actually all-in for whatever reason, and another player "calls" and everyone flips over their cards. Technically, an "all-in" has not been "called" but surely everybody thinks it is in all-in situation since all cards are flipped over. TDA does have a rule that all cards will be turned face up without delay once a player is all-in and all betting action by all other players in the hand is complete, i.e. all-in with no further betting -> flip over all hands. Why shouldn't the converse be true? i.e. when all cards are turned faced-up because all players believe this is in all-in situation, then all players will be deemed to be all-in regardless of the prior betting action.

K-Lo, I am going to respond before I watch the incident. Based on your description I think the problems arise because we allow too much verbal without follow-up action. The only time verbal should be allowed before completion is when action is down to two players. I have always tried to push for separate rules for all-ins and head to head, they are very different from general rules in many categories

All-in for pot limit should automatically indicate the intent for a maximum raise, in this case, it would be a raise the size of the pot. I agree the original call was ridiculous!The amount of a raise from Player B should have been placed into the pot by Player C.

I don't agree that Player's B & C should be all-in. The maximum bet allowed is the pot...so Player C must call the amount that Player B intended on making.

Yes, definitely it would have been best if the dealer counted out what B's wager should have been, then taken the same amount from C, form the side pot, told everyone not to expose their hands, and then directed betting to continue after the flop is dealt. But unfortunately, that's not how it played out. Everyone had flipped over their cards and treated it like an all-in situation, and the dealer followed suit.

So, if as the floor, you get to the table after the entire board has been dealt out, what would you do then? Are you saying that C should only lose enough to cover B's original pot-size raise, but let the board stand, say, because 'substantial action' had already occurred? That would be an interesting alternative, I admit.

I cant believe that no one, the floor that was there for the clock call the dealer or all the other players said hay he is not all in. but Iím sure the dealer gets all the heat for that

Did the guy that folded out of turn or the guy reveling the contents of his hand get a penalty?

But with all that I think the accepted action is the best way to solve it

Option 2 (donít know if its an option or not ) because of the large amount of chips left behind, is to award the pots as they are with all called bets in no more money goes in ( I think this would work for a cash game) This way you are not putting the guy almost all in without him actually calling most of his stack

Gentlemen: You can't bet or raise more than the legal amount and you sure can't take back the turn and river...so, the side pot goes to player B in the amount of his pot size raise, (not the stated all-in), and the main goes to the real all-in Player A. That's my call.

I have to say, that I agree with the "accepted action" as no player spoke up to say that the players were not all in, and allowed 3 burns and 5 community cards to be delivered as well as the results of the hand to be show before saying anything? I feel that re-running any board cards would open the door wide open for future angle shoots (and I think we can mostly all agree that not saying anything til the results or trying to exploit the situation was a clear angle here).

I haven't made up my mind yet whether "treating it as an all-in" or "only the money in the pot counts" is the better solution. In the past I had made the rule that there would be no additional side pot and the board would stay, but I don't disagree with treating it like an all-in either. I will continue to think about it and listen to opinions and then post again.

How can Seat 1 be all-in? Typically in PLO players agree to be all-in to save time of Potting and Re-Potting until they are all-in. Simple.

How can you hold Seat 1 to a bet of all-in? The Player announced that he was all-in and when he was called by Seat 2, both players turned their hands over which means they are both accepting the action of the all-in bet that was verbally announced by Seat 1.

All-in is not a bet in PLO though? It is a bet when two players are left in the hand with no further action. Because Seat 3 mucked, there is no further action behind.

Right or Wrong, Agree or Disagree, the most important point of PokerMcGee's post, in my opinion is:

"Typically in PLO players agree to be all-in to save time of Potting and Re-Potting until they are all-in. Simple."

Does this deviate from the typical betting process, certainly, but so what. These kinds of events are not your typical mom and pop tournaments. These guys are not your typical Monday Night Home Game players and they certainly are not the kind of players you are going to see in a 2-5 or 5-10 PLO game in your local room. If you don't want your players following these kinds of deviations from the "norm", develop house rules that prevent it. It isn't all that complicated.

In fact, if you are going to allow this type of stuff, then I suggest you develop house rules that allow it.

I can certainly see why the players at the WSOP and so forth would want to 'save the clock' by not having to "Pot and Re-Pot". Makes sense even to me.

If dealers were allowed to clarify each bet as it occurs these problems would be non-existent. Players in multi handed pots should make their intentions clear. Push the damn chips forward! A good dealer could have easily prevented the fiasco. What was he thinking?

How can Seat 1 be all-in? Typically in PLO players agree to be all-in to save time of Potting and Re-Potting until they are all-in. Simple.

How can you hold Seat 1 to a bet of all-in? The Player announced that he was all-in and when he was called by Seat 2, both players turned their hands over which means they are both accepting the action of the all-in bet that was verbally announced by Seat 1.

All-in is not a bet in PLO though? It is a bet when two players are left in the hand with no further action. Because Seat 3 mucked, there is no further action behind.

First of all I want to say that "accepted action" is awful. Second, with the info from Tom we can have the players be all-in and accept that. Third, if the players were not heads-up and action was still pending then "all-in" is not a bet and either should be ignored altogether or a commitment of a pot sized bet is all that should be held accountable.Tom is right, K-Lo is right, and Nick is right but all on differing points of nearly the same issue. The devil's in the details folks!

I'm going to briefly revive this thread because I came across an interesting situation much like the one that I alluded to at the end of my original post, where all players flip their hands over because they believe there is no more action to come with a player all-in.

E.g. NLH - A bets, B raises all-in, C calls B's all-in. A then pushes the rest of his chips forward...but it looks like less than B's all-in (in reality A actually has more) ... Everybody flips over their cards including C, because the dealer tells the table that B had A covered. After A wins though, the dealer re-counts and finds that C actually owes "X" more.

1. Do you deem C to have called the all-in (i.e. everyone accepted that it was all-in situation) and direct him to pay A the difference? Or does A only get the amount that C explicitly called?

2. What happens if C says, "I didn't accept the all-in, I just exposed my cards to see what everyone would do. The Rules say give me the option to call and redeal the board, penalize me for exposing my cards with action pending at the end of the hand if you want"... what would be your response?

To those who like the WSOP ruling (and I do, although I think we currently have to rely on Rule 1 to get there), maybe we do need an explicit rule that says something to the effect of: whenever the hands of all players are turned-up in what appears to be all-in situation, all players will be deemed to be all-in, even if all betting action had not yet, in fact, been completed.

I'm having a tough time following these scenarios but, I think the fact that there was no mention of specific amounts, all players are responsible for the largest amount wagered by any player. This is a perfect example (and the only one I've heard), that would support Accepted Action.

I'm having a tough time following these scenarios but, I think the fact that there was no mention of specific amounts, all players are responsible for the largest amount wagered by any player. This is a perfect example (and the only one I've heard), that would support Accepted Action.

Sorry, I will reword using an explicit example.

A bets 500. B goes all in for 4500. C has everyone covered, and calls 4500. Action returns to A who goes all-in... It looks like a total of around 4100. Dealer doesn't break down stacks though, and tells everyone to flip 'em.Board is dealt out, A wins. Dealer counts out A's stack... Turns out it is 5100.

Is C on the hook for 4500 or 5100?What if C challenges that the rules say the board should be redealt since he never had the opportunity to call the 5100?

The amounts are helpful but, if they were not announced, or no confirmation was requested, it could go either way. I now understand the complexities of the situation. I will however, insist that the proper board remain.

Obviously the dealer thought that Player A's all-in was not enough to raise Player C's call. Player B is gone, so do we force Player C to put in another 600? On my last post, I thought that a strict use of TDA rule Accepted Action would be used. Upon further review, I don't like using it because the dealer is the one that screwed up! Damn it! Will somebody train those dealers >:(

Short answer: Player C is only committed to 4500, and the board stays!The bad part is; if Player C had won, the dealer would have pushed Player A's 5100 over to him!

To those who like the WSOP ruling (and I do, although I think we currently have to rely on Rule 1 to get there), maybe we do need an explicit rule that says something to the effect of: whenever the hands of all players are turned-up in what appears to be all-in situation, all players will be deemed to be all-in, even if all betting action had not yet, in fact, been completed.

So, interestingly enough, a variation of the last situation that I was describing earlier has come up again:

My position is still: whenever the hands of all players are turned-up in what appears to be an all-in situation, all players should be deemed to be all-in, even if all betting actions have not yet, in fact, been completed. I have a lot of trouble here backing up the action all the way to fourth street, when the 30K player had the opportunity to stop the action when the other players flipped over his cards, and when the dealer tapped and burned a card before the river is dealt. I would definitely follow the WSOP precedent here and would personally have ruled that the 30K player "accepted" that the situation was an all-in situation. Whether he owes 30K or the full 36K may be disputable, but there's no way I'm re-dealing the river here. These all-in situations are NOT the same as a premature turn or river with betting action still to come.

The ruling is technically correct I suppose if the TD is reluctant to rely on Rule 1, but I think we should be moving towards treating these "incomplete action when all-in" situations in the way I am suggesting. I don't really want to call it "Accepted Action" anymore because I don't want to confuse it with the other debate about whether or not we can rely on a dealer's incorrect count.

I have to agree with you on this one. I don't think the final "proper card' should be removed and reshuffled. Like you say, there could be an argument for not putting the extra amount (600) in the pot but, changing the river card is not in the best interest of the game. I can't figure out why so many TD's and floorpersons insist on the strict interpretation of a rule, when common sense and logic should trump this tournament altering call.

We are always preaching for all cards to be tabled when a player is all-in. We insist that all players and dealers should be on the lookout for chip dumping. We assist dealers if we see a pot being awarded to the wrong player. Why do we allow a new card to be dealt, that could take the pot from the non-offending player, and give new life to another?

There are rules that relate to similar situations; Player a bets and is in for multiple raises and for some reason the dealer burns and turns before the player calls the final raise. In these situations the card stays, even though it was prematurely dealt. The reason is simple, everyone knows the player would have called with his nut hand.

How can we (TD's and Floor), allow a mistake by the dealer, to take a pot away from a deserving winner?

Honestly, looking at the WSOP example, I would rule it a call and that Mosseri would not be entitled to any more money from Yakovenko. Mosseri created the foul by only calling and then exposing his cards which caused the other players to expose theirs. I do not think it is unreasonable for the other players to think he may have been covered, but he should have known he had more than the bet. If not...well, he still committed the first foul. If the board had been different, and Yakovenko had won the hand, I still like that no more of the chips would be committed because Yakovenko flipped his hand without being sure of the action (second foul). No one should benefit from a foul IMO.

But.. I like the reasoning and thought process. HOWEVER, you put the blame at the foot of the wrong player IMO. Yakovenko announced ALL-IN (that's foul #1). Mosseri believed he was calling an all-in bet. After calling with no action behind any longer (Seat 3 folded out of turn) Mosseri turned his hand over because that's what you do when all players are all-in and there's no further action. No fault on his part IMO. After Shaun Deeb (who was all-in for less) turned his hand over, Yakovenko turned his hand over LAST. That's foul #2 on Yakovenko's part. Again IMO. If Yakovenko didn't believe he was playing for an all-in pot then he should've stopped the action before Shaun Deeb turned his hand over. And again before any cards were dealt. But he didn't. Yakovenko only spoke up when he had lost the hand.

You have to treat it sort of like a crime scene. If an assailant believed he had done nothing wrong, they wouldn't leave the scene. They would stay and explain things to authorities, etc, etc. In all other cases, people flee or look for a way out, a way to escape.

In this case Yakovenko took an Angle shot, Announced All-in #1, Got called #2, All players exposed their cards #3, the dealer ran the board because everyone was all-in (same thing he would do in ANY cash game) and then after realizing that he was going to lose the hand Yakovenko tried to grasp onto a remote technicality that the player in Seat 2 only said call and was hoping for a favorable decision from a floor staff member, which sadly he almost got.

I know I'm biased because I'm a WSOP staff member, but this is the perfect hand to use as an example for accepted action and why it's in place.

I see what you are saying, and maybe the situation happened different than I read it...but the way I read it, Mosseri was told Yakovenko had more than pot.

"Yakovenko said to Mosseri that he actually had more than the pot, but Mosseri still wanted a count on Yakovenko's entire stack, using a few choice words. With all the chips Yakovenko had, it took him and the dealer a little bit to break down all the stacks. When it was finished, Yakovenko was said to have had 407,300."

"At one point when Mosseri was in the tank, he did some talking about his hand out loud, which Yakovenko wanted him to stop doing. Mosseri had announced his hand, saying, "I have aces and one suit," while plenty of other players were hovering around. Yakovenko took this as Mosseri "polling his friends" about his hand. There was also a point when Mosseri looked back at his cards and Greg Mueller leaned down to peak in from behind, which Yakovenko also requested be put to a stop.Mosseri tanked for what most estimated at 10 to 15 minutes before Yakovenko finally called the clock on him. "Wow, this is the first time in my life anyone has called the clock on me," said Mosseri. Mosseri was given a minute to act on his hand by the floor staff and eventually said, "I call."Read more: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/06/controversial-poker-hand-highlights-day-2-of-50000-ppc-12946.htm (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/06/controversial-poker-hand-highlights-day-2-of-50000-ppc-12946.htm)

I do agree that Yakovenko did commit a foul, but it also looks like Mosseri was informed of it prior to action.

Mosseri should have no excuse for flipping up his hand when it was clear to him that it wasn't for all of his chips when he called. For all we know, this was an angle shot that he could use if he lost the pot.

Yakovenko should have no excuse for turning up his hand since he knew he wasn't all-in. For all we know, this was an angle shot that he could use if he lost the pot.

You can go even further and say that Mosseri committed another foul that we haven't even discussed. He revealed contents of a hand while there was still action pending...and he was informed that there was action pending before he did it.

Either way, there were a lot of crazy factors in this scenario!

I still stick with my answer of a call though. I feel that it is in the best interest of the game to minimize the damage. No matter which way you rule it, there will be people that think it was the wrong way. Ruling it a call, in my opinion, is the lesser of two evils here.